Livredor and feminism
May. 2nd, 2008 01:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackUnsurprisingly, I think a lot of it comes down to definition of terms. Identifying as a feminist feels like a big deal, because it's often used in a heated way. But saying you made two related decisions:
1. "I have decided that some problems that affect women are important to me, and something I will do things about"
2. "I have decided that attitude is described by the word feminist"
Are two decisions that are hard to criticise.
And I applaud your decisions, your commitment to being able to change your mind, and your helpfully complete descriptions of the situation :)
On the other hand, you feel apologetic/defensive about identifying as feminist, and joke about the stereotypes of feminists, and I'm sure you don't need to.
The concept of "what constitutes feminist" is something that's come up before, and isn't really relevant here, but possibly is a useful way of conceptualising. Say there are circles of feminism.
1. Thinking that women should have equal rights and opportunities[1].
2. Thinking that women don't yet.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
I think that when women couldn't vote, and there were many other awful injustices, that was an incredibly important issue, and many people heroically embraced one through five.
Now, I think an awful lot has been achieved, and this is not the overriding issue in society: certainly I think it's important, but I think people who say this is the problem are over-the-top[3]. I think either they have been carried away by the momentum of it previously being most important, or cannot manage the dissonance to think that because it's important, and very central to them, that it's not the most important thing.
Thus, to me, belief (5) is off the table, and so we are faced with a sticky issue of terminology. Does "feminist" apply to people who believe (5), and by implication I think are overreacting? Or does it apply to people who think (1-4) or (1-3) or (1-2) or even just (1)?
I think this doubt colours an awful lot of debate. I think there's a stereotype that anyone to whom activism for women's rights is important also thinks (5), and so it's hard to draw a line.
And also that terminology cries out to have meaning. Supposing in a distant future equal rights was a long-won issue. I'd be happy to say everyone was a feminist because they all believed (1). But words evolve, and "feminist" would mean someone who seized on little arbitrary sex differences and proclaimed women were horribly oppressed.[2]
Many of my friends are happy to call anyone who believes (1) a feminist. I have often described myself as a feminist in this sense, to stretch the minds of people who can't conceive that a man might be feminist, or that feminism might mean anything other than loony. And partly out of notional solidarity for people who did and do do valiant feminist things; it seems disrespectful to reapply a laudable word to things you disagree with.
Now I feel embarrassed, because in some sense that holds, but really, it's much more properly applied to people who actually do something about it (3).
It sounds to me like you are moving from (2) into a bit of (3). But will probably never go to (4) -- like other worthy causes, this needs some people to devote themselves to it. But I happen to think other things are your calling, and this will be important to you, but not most important.
The good news is, I think you have lots of company. I think most of the men and women I know are (1) and probably (2), and many of them unabashedly seize the word "feminist", and we definitely counted you in our cozy (1-2) community already, whether or not it could be described as feminist.
And I know some people who do (3), either a little or a lot.
The question is, what communities do you envisage? Obviously you can do a lot of (3) without ever belonging to a specific community -- eg. funding a charity which gives start up small-business loans to women in a third-world country, or teaching your female bat mitzvah students that they being female is not a bar to aspects of Judaism. It's not specifically feminist, it's just a right thing to do. But I think it's included in what the feminist thing to do would be.
Conversely, you are likely to meet communities of (3), and any community of (3) is likely to contain (4) simply because of course some people are going to be most committed, and will no doubt also contain (5).
But I think you need to be clear on whose opinion about you you care about having. Probably people will correctly point out things you do that maybe are counter-productive. But on the other hand, they may not be very big things.
Conversely, in any group, some people will take things out of proportion. For instance, my gut reaction is that campaigning for changing spellings is useless. But I admit that some things I thought were stupid turned out to be a good idea when I examined them. But either way, I don't think it's that important: I think there are visible examples of gender inequality that can be effectively fought, whereas changing spellings of common words is (a) very difficult and (b) unlikely to provide much benefit.[4]
And you ought to be able to do some feminist things, and cautiously accept the label "feminist", without necessarily having to bow to everything people who call themselves "feminist" think. Obviously.
That went on a long time. I'm not sure how relevant it was to you, but I think it had some interesting ideas in. I may repost it to my journal.
Footnotes
[1] Interestingly, this sentence means the same thing as "men should have equal rights", it just correctly implies that women are more short-changed. I think someone saying "women should have equal rights" is probably -- or at least ought to also think that men should have equal rights.
[2] Here I'm tying back into my thoughts on "atheism" and "darwinist". Because everyone sane is a darwinist, "Darwinist" comes to mean "people who believe loony stuff that in some way could be seen as an extension of darwinism"
[3] That is, in this society. In many countries, I think (1-5) would be completely valid beliefs, and anyone who goes to fight for them would be one of the most laudable and epitomeic examples of feminism.
[4] Changing the meaning may be useful, eg. not using a generic "him" is a good thing. And it might be useful as a way of drawing attention to things.
1. "I have decided that some problems that affect women are important to me, and something I will do things about"
2. "I have decided that attitude is described by the word feminist"
Are two decisions that are hard to criticise.
And I applaud your decisions, your commitment to being able to change your mind, and your helpfully complete descriptions of the situation :)
On the other hand, you feel apologetic/defensive about identifying as feminist, and joke about the stereotypes of feminists, and I'm sure you don't need to.
The concept of "what constitutes feminist" is something that's come up before, and isn't really relevant here, but possibly is a useful way of conceptualising. Say there are circles of feminism.
1. Thinking that women should have equal rights and opportunities[1].
2. Thinking that women don't yet.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
I think that when women couldn't vote, and there were many other awful injustices, that was an incredibly important issue, and many people heroically embraced one through five.
Now, I think an awful lot has been achieved, and this is not the overriding issue in society: certainly I think it's important, but I think people who say this is the problem are over-the-top[3]. I think either they have been carried away by the momentum of it previously being most important, or cannot manage the dissonance to think that because it's important, and very central to them, that it's not the most important thing.
Thus, to me, belief (5) is off the table, and so we are faced with a sticky issue of terminology. Does "feminist" apply to people who believe (5), and by implication I think are overreacting? Or does it apply to people who think (1-4) or (1-3) or (1-2) or even just (1)?
I think this doubt colours an awful lot of debate. I think there's a stereotype that anyone to whom activism for women's rights is important also thinks (5), and so it's hard to draw a line.
And also that terminology cries out to have meaning. Supposing in a distant future equal rights was a long-won issue. I'd be happy to say everyone was a feminist because they all believed (1). But words evolve, and "feminist" would mean someone who seized on little arbitrary sex differences and proclaimed women were horribly oppressed.[2]
Many of my friends are happy to call anyone who believes (1) a feminist. I have often described myself as a feminist in this sense, to stretch the minds of people who can't conceive that a man might be feminist, or that feminism might mean anything other than loony. And partly out of notional solidarity for people who did and do do valiant feminist things; it seems disrespectful to reapply a laudable word to things you disagree with.
Now I feel embarrassed, because in some sense that holds, but really, it's much more properly applied to people who actually do something about it (3).
It sounds to me like you are moving from (2) into a bit of (3). But will probably never go to (4) -- like other worthy causes, this needs some people to devote themselves to it. But I happen to think other things are your calling, and this will be important to you, but not most important.
The good news is, I think you have lots of company. I think most of the men and women I know are (1) and probably (2), and many of them unabashedly seize the word "feminist", and we definitely counted you in our cozy (1-2) community already, whether or not it could be described as feminist.
And I know some people who do (3), either a little or a lot.
The question is, what communities do you envisage? Obviously you can do a lot of (3) without ever belonging to a specific community -- eg. funding a charity which gives start up small-business loans to women in a third-world country, or teaching your female bat mitzvah students that they being female is not a bar to aspects of Judaism. It's not specifically feminist, it's just a right thing to do. But I think it's included in what the feminist thing to do would be.
Conversely, you are likely to meet communities of (3), and any community of (3) is likely to contain (4) simply because of course some people are going to be most committed, and will no doubt also contain (5).
But I think you need to be clear on whose opinion about you you care about having. Probably people will correctly point out things you do that maybe are counter-productive. But on the other hand, they may not be very big things.
Conversely, in any group, some people will take things out of proportion. For instance, my gut reaction is that campaigning for changing spellings is useless. But I admit that some things I thought were stupid turned out to be a good idea when I examined them. But either way, I don't think it's that important: I think there are visible examples of gender inequality that can be effectively fought, whereas changing spellings of common words is (a) very difficult and (b) unlikely to provide much benefit.[4]
And you ought to be able to do some feminist things, and cautiously accept the label "feminist", without necessarily having to bow to everything people who call themselves "feminist" think. Obviously.
That went on a long time. I'm not sure how relevant it was to you, but I think it had some interesting ideas in. I may repost it to my journal.
Footnotes
[1] Interestingly, this sentence means the same thing as "men should have equal rights", it just correctly implies that women are more short-changed. I think someone saying "women should have equal rights" is probably -- or at least ought to also think that men should have equal rights.
[2] Here I'm tying back into my thoughts on "atheism" and "darwinist". Because everyone sane is a darwinist, "Darwinist" comes to mean "people who believe loony stuff that in some way could be seen as an extension of darwinism"
[3] That is, in this society. In many countries, I think (1-5) would be completely valid beliefs, and anyone who goes to fight for them would be one of the most laudable and epitomeic examples of feminism.
[4] Changing the meaning may be useful, eg. not using a generic "him" is a good thing. And it might be useful as a way of drawing attention to things.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 02:16 am (UTC)Feminism is, in a way, ABOUT seeing the female half of the species as a group of people. It's about lumping together the experiences of all kinds of women: the unfairness, the expectations, and so on. It's about saying, for instance, "I see that women's work, in many cultures, is considered less important or taxing than men's work"-- and that applies to discrepancies in pay in the "pink collar" fields, to ways that traditional women's work isn't counted in gross domestic product, and to everything in between.
I would say that seeing women as a group is a defining characteristic of feminism. Saying that one isn't necessarily a feminist doesn't mean that you don't think all those injustices happen, it just means that you think the other things you can find in common for those injustices are more important, or that rather than grouping injustices according to who they happen to, you ought to think more about some other cause and reasoning.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 11:37 am (UTC)Your first comment sounded like you meant the first, which stunned me. If the second then I totally agree: I think the prejudiced against group is likely to be disadvantaged much more, but I think it's certainly a bad thing for everyone.
It only "evens out" on the average, and only if you consider "women" to be a group of people.
But it doesn't even out. "Evening out for women" is what I was rebutting because it sounded to me like you said it. Certainly some people are too ready to see things in terms of how it affects a group of women (or other group).
But if women are discriminated against, I think it makes sense that of all subsets of society, "women" is the one that is hurt on average most by it. That group is not just arbitrary: it is who shares a set of problems. Maybe if the prejudice weren't there it would be just as arbitrary as "people who start with J", but it is.
In your example Mrs Businessman is fortunate, the prejudice isn't really hurting her directly at this point, but: she is forced to stay with Mr Businessman; if Mr Businessman leaves her she can't get a good job; she was born into a trap she managed to escape, that doesn't mean she just shrugs and says "that's ok then"; she may want her children to have equal freedom, and Mr Businessman almost certainly isn't putting much effort into fighting prejudice on behalf of his daughters so it's up to her. If she wants to change any of this, her natural ally is Ms Businesswoman, (and maybe her husband, but I bet there are lots more Mrs Businesswomans).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 02:51 pm (UTC)Certainly, and that's where I am too. However, and I should have said this straight off, I was talking about your use of "indoctrinated" specifically in this sentence: "Many times, people who are oppressed are indoctrinated as thoroughly as the people who are privileged." (You had said this upstream in the comments.)
I don't think that you should state that either the people who benefit or the people who don't benefit are "frequently indoctrinated." (emphasis mine) I have three reasons for this.
One is that using the word is-- please pardon the pun-- patronizing. If I disagree with you and say that you're indoctrinated, I'm saying that I'm right because I've thought about my position and rationally considered it, whereas you just parrot back what you're told. If it's not obviously true, that's rather an ad hominem attack, isn't it?
It's also divisive because "indoctrinate" is a loaded word that implies that those doing the teaching are doing a bad thing. If a non-feminist woman thinks that the male breadwinner/female homemaker is the most ideal family because that's what she saw growing up, calling it "indoctrination" is asking her to suddenly get the idea that her parents were doing an awful thing and she didn't even know it. "Your very parents were conspiring against you" is not likely to win someone converts.
And third, as you said just above, some lucky women happen to escape the bounds of oppression in one or more ways. Most women, if not all, have moments in their life when they are not actively being oppressed. (These may only happen when they're alone, but hey, that counts.) So, not-being-oppressed can be a semi-permanent position (see Mrs. Businessman) or a fleeting one, but it is real. If a woman tells you that she's not being oppressed right now, or that it doesn't really affect her life that much, she may actually be right.
After all, it shouldn't hurt feminism to say "You know, some women have it pretty good most of the time, and lots have it good some of the time; but we're more interested in getting a fair chance for those who don't have one." It makes a lot more rational sense than "Many women don't even know they're oppressed, poor dears."
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 01:24 pm (UTC)I was rebutting the hypothetical comment "Inner voice: Ah, but what if any woman who thinks X is not evidence of abuse of male privilege is brainwashed!".
It sounds like you may have the impression that I thought "indoctrinated" applied to the current situation of gender inequality, that I might think "Many women don't even know they're oppressed, poor dears"? For what it's worth that's almost exactly what I was rebutting. If I had meant that, I would have written an argument much more delicately and backed it up a lot, precisely because I know how insulting it can be. I shouldn't have assumed it was obvious I disagreed. And probably should have been more clear and not used troubling concepts in proximity to each other.
With "indoctrinated", I was considering other cases where people really are convinced that the inequality is the natural order of things, perpetuated by the way they bring up the next generation, and really are oppressed without realising it (eg. if white people keep black slaves, and both are convinced that's necessary). "Indoctrinated" is a little misleading as the indoctrination isn't deliberate -- but the effects are sufficiently dire that I naturally used a loaded word anyway.
I didn't think that applied to the current situation of gender inequality, but implicitly so it probably wasn't clear at all.
I don't think that you should state that either the people who benefit or the people who don't benefit are "frequently indoctrinated."
I don't think it makes any difference but fwiw, that was also an ambiguity: I didn't mean that "Of all cases of inequality, most people are indoctrinated" but "In many[1] cases of inequality, (almost) all people are indoctrinated."
One is that using the word is-- please pardon the pun-- patronizing.
I know what you mean. (In fact, I so hate patronisation that I may subconsciously choose to jokingly use something that could be patronising assuming it's clear that I don't mean to be, forgetting that's not obvious.)
But I considering if it is ever the case that people are wrong about whether they are oppressed/favoured, and think that sometimes it really is. And so it seems only fair to use a word that says that.
I precisely think that you shouldn't casually assume someone is -- if you're going to claim someone doesn't understand their own opinions you inherently need a large body of evidence. But since I wasn't describing anyone in particular I didn't bother picking an example and trying to justify it, trusting that people could see there would be some examples.
[1] As in, there are many examples, not that it has to happen in a majority of cases.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 01:40 pm (UTC)"I precisely think that you shouldn't casually assume someone is -- if you're going to claim someone doesn't understand their own opinions you inherently need a large body of evidence."
I really like this discussion, but you do realize that we can't properly argue unless one of us switches sides?
(As in, I agree with everything you've said here and you said it much better than I could have.)
Perhaps we need a word for "an argument in which people agree strenuously." Agrue?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 01:49 pm (UTC)ROFL. Quite. I'm glad we've agreed, I was worried we'd go on stridently agreeing (or not agreeing) forever. I think the point is, now we agree, we can stop :) You could even count that as both winning :)
I was going to go back to your post and agree with some of the things you said in more detail :) because I worried that a post that said "I agree with everything you just said in this comment," wasn't sufficient, and I should also make sure that a greater proportion of my writing agreed than disagreed, just to give the right impression. I'm glad that's wasn't necessary :)
Perhaps we need a word for "an argument in which people agree strenuously." Agrue?
LOL. But I think the main thing to do about strenuously agreeing is not to do so. If you want to hammer it out into a more coherent narrative, that's good, but strenuously agreeing generally means two people agree but don't know that yet, and so are arguing past each other until it clicks :)